Still seeking for an explanation of the Sequential Compatibility Effect

  1. Privado Zamorano, Jesús
  2. Botella Ausina, Juan
  3. Suero Suñe, Manuel
  4. Quiroga Estévez, María Ángeles
  5. Colom, Roberto
Revista:
Anales de psicología

ISSN: 0212-9728,  1695-2294

Año de publicación: 2015

Volumen: 31

Número: 2

Páginas: 687-696

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.6018/ANALESPS.31.2.173071 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR

Otras publicaciones en: Anales de psicología

Resumen

The modulation of the Compatibility Effect (CE) according to the compatibility of the previous trial (Sequential Compatibility Effect, SCE) in three types of attentional tasks is explored. The flankers and spatial Stroop tasks have different degrees of cognitive complexity. In all three tasks it is analyzed whether the SCE varies when the stimuli in consecutive trials are exactly the same (pure replicas) or not. The data, collected from three in-dependent samples (total N = 1.159), show the CE in the three tasks. However, SCE only shows up in the spatial Stroop task. The effect is smaller albeit still significant when the pure replica trials are removed, a re-sult inconsistent with those of Mayr et al. (2003) and Hommel (1998) but consistent with the Conflict Theory (Botvinick et al., 2001). Furthermore, we also discuss the importance of cognitive complexity in relation to the per-spective of Botvinick et al. (2004). From this point of view more complexi-ty should be reflected in a greater presence of cognitive conflict, and there-fore a higher SCE.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Arend, I., Colom, R., Botella, J., Contreras, M. J., Rubio, V., & Santacreu, J. (2003). Quantifying cognitive complexity: evidence from a reasoning task. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 659-669.
  • Baddeley, A. D. (2002). Is working memory still working? European Psycholo-gist, 7, 85-97.
  • Barriopedro, M. I., & Botella, J. (1998). New evidence for the zoom model using the RSVP technique. Perception & Psychophysics, 60(8), 1406-1414.
  • Bertelson, P. (1961). Sequential redundancy and speed in a serial two-choice responding task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 13, 90-102.
  • Botella, J. (1997). Los paradigmas de compatibilidad en el estudio de la aten-ción selectiva. Estudios de Psicología, 57, 79-92.
  • Botella, J. (1998). Atención. In J. Montserrat, La percepción visual, (pp. 499-532). Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva.
  • Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108(3), 624-652.
  • Botvinick, M. M., Cohen, J. D., & Carter, C. S. (2004). Conflict monitoring and anterior cingulated cortex: an update. Cognitive Sciences, 8(12), 539-546.
  • Braver, T. S., Cole, M. W., & Yarkoni, T. (2010). Vive les differences! Indi-vidual variation in neural mechanisms of executive control. Current Opin-ion in Neurobiology, 20, 242–250.
  • Burle, B., Allain, W., Vidal, F., & Hasbroucq, T. (2005). Sequential compati-bility Effects and cognitive control: Does conflict really matter? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(4), 831-837.
  • Casey B. J., Thomas, K. M., Welsh, T. F., Badgaiyan, R. D., Eccard, C. H., Jennings, J. R., & Crone, E. A. (2000). Dissociation of response con-flict, attentional selection, and expectancy with functional magnetic res-onance imaging. Proceedings of the National Academic of Sciences, 97(15), 8728-8733.
  • Cohen, J. D. & Huston, T. A. (1994). Progress in the use of interactive models for understanding attention and performance. En C. Umilta & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance XV, (pp. 453-456). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Cohen, J. D., Servan-Schreiber, D., & McClelland, J. L. (1992). A parallel distributed processing approach to automaticity. American Journal of Psy-chology, 105, 239-269.
  • Egner, T., & Hirsch, J. (2005). Cognitive control mechanisms resolve con-flict through cortical amplification of task-relevant information. Nature Neuroscience, 8(12), 1784-1790.
  • Engle, R. W., Kane, M. J., & Tuholski, S. W. (1999). Individual differences in working memory capacity and what they tell us about controlled at-tention, general fluid intelligences, and functions of the prefrontal cor-tex. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of Working Memory: Mechanisms of Active Maintenance and Executive Control (pp. 102-134). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of target letters in a non-search task. Perception & Psycho-physics, 16, 143-149.
  • Eriksen, C. W., & James, J. D. S. (1986). Visual attention within and around the field of focal attention: A zoom lens model. Perception & Psychophys-ics, 40(4), 225-240.
  • Eriksen, C. W., & Yeh, Y. Y. (1985). Allocation of attention in the visual field. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11(5), 583.
  • Fernández-Duque, D., & Knight, M. (2008). Cognitive Control: Dynamic, Sustained, and Voluntary Influences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance.
  • Gratton, G., Coles, M. G. H., & Donchin, E. (1992). Optimizing the use of information: Strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Ex-perimental Psychology: General, 121(4), 480-506.
  • Hommel, B. (1998). Event files: Evidence for automatic integration of stim-ulus-response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5, 183-216.
  • Hommel, B. (2004). Event files: Feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 494-500.
  • Hommel, B. (2007). Feature integration across perception and action: event files affect response choise. Psychological Research, 71, 42-63.
  • Hommel, B., Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K. P. L. (2004). A feature-integration account of sequential effects in the Simon task. Psychological Research, 68, 1-17.
  • Kerns, J. G., Cohen, J. D., MacDonald III, A. W, Cho, R. Y., Stenger, V. A., & Carter, C. S. (2004). Anterior Cingulate Conflict Monitoring and Ad-justments in Control. Science, 303, 1023-1026.
  • Kunde, W., & Wühr, P. (2006). Sequential modulations of correspondence effects across spatial dimensions and tasks. Memory & Cognition, 34(2), 356-367.
  • Mayr, U., Awh, E., & Laurey, P. (2003). Conflict adaptation effects in the absence of executive control. Nature Neuroscience, 6(5), 450-452.
  • McClelland, J. L. & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part I. An account of basic find-ings. Psychological Review, 88, 375-407.
  • McDonald III, A. W., Cohen, J. D., Stenger, V. A., & Carter, C. S. (2000). Dissociating the role of the dorsolateral prefrontal and anterior cingu-late cortex in cognitive control. Science, 288(9) June, 1835-1838.
  • Milham, M. P. & Banich, M. T. (2005). Anterior Cingulate Cortex: An fMRI Analysis of Conflict Specificity and Functional Differentiation. Human Brain Mapping, 25: 328-335.
  • Nieuwenhuis, S., Stins, J. F., Posthuma, D., Polderman, T. J. C., Boomsma, D. I., & de Geus, E. J. (2006). Accounting for sequential trial effects in the flanker task: Conflict adaptation or associative priming? Memory & Cognition, 34(6), 1260-1272.
  • Notebaert, W., Gevers, W., Verbruggen, F., & Liefooghe, B. (2006). Top-down and bottom-up sequential modulations of congruency effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(1), 112-117.
  • Notebaert, W., & Verguts, T. (2007). Dissociating conflict adaptation from feature integration: A multiple regression approach. Journal of Experi-mental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(5), 1256-1260.
  • Simon, J. R., & Rudell, A. P. (1967). Auditory S-R compatibility: The effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 51, 300-304.
  • Soetens, E. (1998). Localizing sequential effects in serial choice reaction time with the information reduction procedure. Journal of Experimental Psychol-ogy: Human Perception and Performance, 24(2) 547-568.
  • Soetens, E., Boer, L. C., & Hueting, J. E. (1983). Expectancy or automatic facilitation? Separating sequential effects in two-choice reaction time. Jounal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11(5), 598-616.
  • Soetens, E., & Notebaert, W. (2005). Response monitoring and expectancy in random serial RT tasks. Acta Psychologica, 119, 189-216.
  • Stürmer, B., Seiss, E., & Leuthold, H. (2005). Executive control in the Si-mon task: A dual-task examination of response priming and its sup-pression. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 17(5), 590-618.
  • Ullsperger, M., Bylsma, L. M., & Botvinick, M. M. (2005). The conflict adap-tation effect: It’s just priming. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 5(4), 467-472.
  • Van Veen, V., Cohen, J. D., Botvinick M. M., Stenger V. A., & Carter C. S. (2001). Anterior cingulate cortex, conflict monitoring and levels of pro-cessing. Neuroimage, 14, 1302-1308.
  • Verbruggen, F., Notebaert, W., Liefooghe, B., & Vandierendock, A. (2006). Stimulus and response conflict-induced cognitive control in the flanker task. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 13(2), 328-333.
  • Wendt, M., Kluwe, R. H., & Peters, A. (2006). Sequential modulations of in-terference evoked by processing task-irrelevant stimulus features. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(3), 644-667.
  • Wühr, P., & Ansorge, U. (2005). Exploring trial-by-trial modulations of the Simon effect. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58A(4), 705-731.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet